Last Week in Antitrust Litigation (#064)
- Kressin Powers
- 3 days ago
- 7 min read
Week of June 1, 2026
Top Takeaways
Access Restrictions and Platform Governance Become Central Antitrust Themes: Cases against Microsoft, Phantom, and Porsche advance theories that dominant firms can unlawfully foreclose competition through platform controls, interoperability restrictions, and access to essential functionality.
Judicial Scrutiny of Exclusionary Conduct Remains Exacting: Decisions in Element Biosciences v. Illumina and NECEC Transmission v. Campos reaffirm that plaintiffs must plausibly allege substantial foreclosure, below-cost pricing, or conspiratorial agreement rather than infer anticompetitive conduct from ordinary commercial relationships.
Complex Industry-Wide Cases Continue to Mature: The latest Sandoz ruling and the certification order in Corzo v. Brown University demonstrate courts’ willingness to advance sprawling antitrust cases where plaintiffs present detailed evidence of coordinated conduct and common injury.
New Cases Filed
Rockman v. Microsoft Corp. (W.D. Wash. May 31, 2026): Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against Microsoft alleging that Microsoft entered into horizontal price-fixing and noncompetition agreements with Valve Corporation in the market for distribution of PC games in violation of, among others, the Sherman Act. The complaint alleges that Microsoft and Valve agreed to maintain price parity for PC games sold through their competing distribution platforms, refrain from competing on PC game content and release timing, accept alleged kickbacks in exchange for noncompetition, and conceal those arrangements from consumers. According to the complaint, these agreements prevented competition in the relevant market, raised PC game prices, limited unique content selection and game quality, bolstered Valve’s market position, and caused consumers to pay higher prices for PC games than they would have in a competitive market.
PayRange LLC v. Alliance Laundry Sys. LLC (W.D. Wis. June 1, 2026): PayRange filed suit against Alliance Laundry Systems alleging that Alliance unlawfully tied its payment-processing technology for commercial laundry equipment to its payment-enabled commercial laundry machines and attempted to monopolize the market for payment-processing technology for commercial laundry equipment by leveraging its alleged monopoly power in the markets for commercial laundry machines and payment-enabled commercial laundry machines in violation of, among others, the Sherman Act and Clayton Act. The complaint alleges that Alliance terminated a license agreement with PayRange, falsely informed customers that PayRange technology would no longer be authorized to work with Alliance machines, represented that Alliance controlled third-party payment system access, and sought to coerce customers into abandoning PayRange’s payment solutions in favor of Alliance’s competing payment products. According to the complaint’s antitrust injury allegations, Alliance’s conduct has caused reduced output, lower-quality payment solutions, reduced consumer choice, and higher prices, and harmed PayRange through lost business and lost customer goodwill.
C.A. Spalding Co. v. China Int'l Marine Containers (Grp.) Co. (N.D. Cal. June 2, 2026): C.A. Spalding filed a putative class action against several standard dry shipping container manufacturers and related individuals alleging that defendants agreed to restrict output and fix prices in the market for standard dry shipping containers sold to customers worldwide in violation of the Sherman Act and related state antitrust laws. The complaint alleges that defendants coordinated through meetings, trade-association activity, production quotas, restrictions on factory shifts and capacity expansion, surveillance systems to monitor compliance, and penalty mechanisms to enforce adherence to agreed output restrictions and pricing discipline. According to the complaint, defendants’ conduct restricted the output of standard dry shipping containers, fixed, raised, maintained, and stabilized container prices at supracompetitive levels, increased shipping costs paid by United States importers, and caused indirect purchasers to pay inflated prices for shipping containers and transportation services incorporating those container costs.
Alex R. White, PLLC v. Isaacs & Isaacs P.S.C. (W.D. Kent. June 2, 2026): Plaintiffs filed suit against the law firm Isaacs & Isaacs P.S.C. alleging that Isaacs used restrictive attorney employment agreements, confiscatory fee-sharing provisions, client-notification restrictions, and retaliatory sham litigation to monopolize and restrain competition in the market for motor-vehicle personal-injury attorneys’ services in greater Kentuckiana in violation of, among others, the Sherman Act. The complaint alleges that Isaacs required attorneys to sign agreements claiming seventy percent of fees earned on clients who followed departing attorneys, imposed additional liquidated damages and case-acquisition charges, prohibited discussions of compensation, restricted attorneys’ communications with clients upon departure, and filed baseless lawsuits against former attorneys and their new employers to deter lateral movement and competition. According to the complaint’s anticompetitive effects allegations, Isaacs’ conduct reduced attorney mobility, discouraged competing firms from hiring former Isaacs attorneys, limited clients’ ability to choose counsel, reduced output and competition in the provision of motor-vehicle personal-injury attorney services, and enabled Isaacs to maintain and expand its market power in greater Kentuckiana.
W Dev., LLC v. Phantom Techs., Inc. (D.P.R. June 2, 2026): W Development filed suit against Phantom Technologies alleging that Phantom illegally used request-blocking warnings, unsafe-confirmation classifications, and non-transparent review and remediation practices in the market for Solana-based non-custodial wallet access and transaction execution interfaces in violation of, among others, Section 2 of the Sherman Act. The complaint alleges that Phantom replaced ordinary wallet transaction approvals for CloneMe with warnings stating that the application “could be malicious,” required users to proceed through multiple “unsafe” override screens, refused to remove or normalize those warnings after review requests, and conditioned clearance on factors such as GitHub history, social activity, public identity, or endorsements rather than objective technical review. According to the complaint, Phantom’s conduct impaired CloneMe’s market access, launch efforts, commercialization activities, credibility, goodwill, and ability to operate under ordinary wallet transaction conditions, thereby excluding competition and causing economic and reputational injury to W Development.
The follow-on cases that were filed are:
City of Tempe v. REV Grp. (D. Ariz. May 28, 2026) (alleging defendants conspired to inflate the price of fire trucks like in City of La Crosse v. Oshkosh Corp. (E.D. Wis. Aug. 20, 2025)); Mayor & City Council of Balt. v. REV Grp. (D. Md. June 2, 2026) (same);
M7 Indústria e Comércio de Compensados e Laminados Ltda v. U.S. Structural Plywood Integrity Coal. (S.D.N.Y. May 31, 2026) (companion case to M7 Indústria e Comércio de Compensados e Laminados Ltda v. U.S. Structural Plywood Integrity Coal. (S.D.N.Y. May 31, 2025))
Palomino Heating LLC v. Robert Bosch, LLC (E.D. Mich. June 2, 2026) (alleging manufacturers conspired to raise and fix the price of HVAC equipment like in Berg v. Robert Bosch LLC (E.D. Mich. Mar. 20, 2026))
Trustees of Princeton Univ. v. Eli Lilly & Co. (D.N.J. June 2, 2026) (alleging defendants conspired to rig prices of diabetes medications like in Balt. City Bd. of Sch. Comm'rs v. Eli Lilly & Co. (D. Md. Jan. 10, 2025))
Live Oak Farms v. Nutrien Ag Sols. (E.D. Cal. June 3, 2026) (alleging defendants conspired to fix the price of fertilizers like in Stevens v. Nutrien AG Sols. (N.D. Ill. Mar. 7, 2026))
Dispositive Orders and TROs
Element Biosciences, Inc. v. Illumina, Inc. (N.D. Cal. May 28, 2026): In this case alleging Illumina engaged in anticompetitive conduct in the market for short-read next-generation DNA sequencing (“NGS”) instruments, consumables and instrument services, the court granted Illumina’s motion to dismiss with leave to amend. As for the antitrust claims, the court reasoned that (a) the complaint failed to plausibly allege the contractual arrangements necessary to support exclusive-dealing claims and did not adequately establish that sequencing instruments, consumables, and services were distinct products for tying purposes, (b) the claims based on a predatory pricing theory failed because Element did not sufficiently allege below-cost pricing, and (c) the disparagement theory failed because Element did not sufficiently allege that the representations were “clearly false” and were not “continued for prolonged periods.”
Connecticut v. Sandoz, Inc. (D. Conn. June 1, 2026): In this case alleging an overarching conspiracy among manufacturers of dermatology generic drugs in violation of antitrust laws, the court granted in part Greenstone’s motion for summary judgment. The court reasoned that (a) evidence of parallel pricing, contemporaneous interfirm communications, and internal documents created triable issues as to Greenstone’s participation in conspiracies involving the 2012 and 2014 Clindamycin price increases, Eplerenone, and Latanoprost, (b) the record was insufficient to support claims concerning the 2010 Clindamycin solution price increase, the 2013 Clindamycin solution market-allocation theory, or Greenstone’s participation in the alleged overarching industry-wide conspiracy, and (c) summary judgment on disgorgement was premature because the availability and scope of that remedy depended on factual and legal determinations that could not be resolved before trial.
NECEC Transmission LLC v. Campos EPC, LLC (S.D.N.Y. June 1, 2026): In this case alleging that Campos and HDD Company engaged in a bid-rigging conspiracy to inflate the price of a horizontal directional drilling contract under the Kennebec River, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the antitrust claim. The court reasoned that the complaint’s theory of conspiracy was implausible because the alleged scheme depended on multiple speculative contingencies and was inconsistent with the parties’ conduct during negotiations and bidding.
Class Actions and Other Settlements
Corzo v. Brown Univ. (N.D. Ill. June 1, 2026): In this class action alleging that universities conspired to suppress institutional financial aid, the court granted class certification after appointing new lead class counsel to address prior concerns regarding the adequacy of counsel. The court found that although former proposed class counsel had engaged in misconduct involving misrepresentations about litigation funding arrangements, the conduct had not prejudiced the class or affected prior settlement and fee determinations. To avoid harming the class while addressing concerns about counsel’s candor, the court appointed MoloLamken LLP as lead class counsel, retained existing firms in co-counsel roles, and certified a class of students who received need-based financial aid and paid a portion of tuition, fees, room, or board during the class period. The court directed the parties to submit a proposed class notice and scheduled further proceedings regarding notice administration.
*** *** ***
If you have any antirust questions or would like more information about any of these matters, please contact one of the following authors:
This newsletter has been prepared by Kressin Powers LLC for educational and informational purposes only regarding recent legal developments and does not constitute advertising or solicitation. No legal or business decision should be based on its content. Neither this publication nor the lawyers who authored it are rendering legal or other professional advice or opinions on specific facts or matters, nor does the distribution of this publication to any person constitute the establishment of an attorney-client relationship. Those seeking legal advice should contact a member of the Firm or legal counsel licensed in their jurisdiction. The invitation to contact is not a solicitation for legal work under the laws of any jurisdiction in which Kressin Powers LLC lawyers are not authorized to practice. Confidential information should not be sent to Kressin Powers LLC without first communicating directly with a member of the Firm about establishing an attorney-client relationship.